Robert Venturi and Saul Steinberg Andreea Margareta Mihalache Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty O
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Boredom’s Metamorphosis: Robert Venturi and Saul Steinberg Andreea Margareta Mihalache Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Architecture and Design Research Paul Emmons, Chair Marcia Feuerstein Jaan Holt Amy Kulper April 16, 2018 Alexandria, Virginia Keywords: Architecture; Boredom; Midcentury; Robert Venturi; Saul Steinebrg © 2018 by Andreea Margareta Mihalache Boredom’s Metamorphosis: Robert Venturi and Saul Steinberg Andreea Margareta Mihalache ABSTRACT My dissertation investigates questions of boredom and architecture in the middle decades of the twentieth century through the work of two figures: the American-Italian architect Robert Venturi (b. 1925) and the Romanian-born American architect and artist Saul Steinberg (1914- 1999). The topic of boredom in architecture, and specifically within this timeframe, has been largely ignored in architectural history, theory, and criticism where, with the exception of a few articles, there is no consistent body of scholarship on this issue. Looming large in the sterile iterations of various –isms, boredom remains critical in contemporary architectural practice as the production and obsolescence of images becomes ever faster with new technologies. Quickly saturated with information presented in fleeting displays that are easy to produce, easy to delete, and easy to consume, as soon as our expectation for novelty and change fails to satisfy us, we fall back into the loop of boredom. While boredom as the dissociation of person from place has raised architects’ interest especially during the middle decades of the twentieth century, there is no significant scholarship on this topic. In this context, my research looks at the work of two architects who go beyond the attractive rhetoric of boredom and explore its potential as both a critical and a generative tool. Boredom’s Metamorphosis: Robert Venturi and Saul Steinberg Andreea Margareta Mihalache GENERAL AUDIENCE ABSTRACT My dissertation investigates questions of boredom and architecture in the middle decades of the twentieth century through the work of two figures: the American-Italian architect Robert Venturi (b. 1925) and the Romanian-born American architect and artist Saul Steinberg (1914- 1999). Although the topic of boredom as a disease of modernity has been studied in various fields, such as philosophy, literary studies, sociology, and visual arts, it does not have a presence in architectural scholarship. We live in a world where images are short lived, their production and obsolescence becomes faster with new technologies, and we become quickly bored with everything. In this context, boredom remains critical in contemporary architectural practice where we are quickly saturated with information presented in fleeting displays that are easy to produce, easy to delete, and easy to consume. As soon as our expectation for novelty and change fails to satisfy us, we fall back into the loop of boredom. My research looks at the work of two architects who go beyond the rhetoric of boredom and explore its potential both as a tool of criticism and as a design tool. DEDICATION To Luca and my parents, cu dragoste nemăsurată iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation has been closer to a personal journey than I would have ever imagined. It has been written over several years, in several places: a living room facing a quiet backyard in Brookland, Washington, D.C.; the Ph.D. student offices at the Washington-Alexandria Architecture Center; our family house in Bucharest, between two peach trees; the main reading room at the Library of Congress; an office with a lavish porch at Mississippi State University; the Lee Hall “Tower” at Clemson University looking at the often troubled skies of the South; and, finally, nello studiolo of our rental house in Central, SC. During all these years and in all these places, I would have never accomplished anything without the support, patience, and love of all the people who stood by me. This work owes everything to their friendship and unconditioned trust. I thank my committee members for their guidance, knowledge, and humanity. In her graceful and elegant manner, Dr. Marcia Feurestein has the incredibly strong gift of asking the right question at the right time and thus moving the research forward. By weaving together seemingly loose threads into an unexpected wondrous fabric, Dr. Amy Kulper has shown me how to construct meaning from conventional facts. With his infinite wisdom doubled by an infinite heart, Jaan Holt has magically made things possible at times when nothing seemed possible anymore. His larger than life personality belongs to mythology rather than ordinary life. Dr. Paul Emmons, my committee chair, continues to be a mentor and has become a friend. His ingegno operates at levels inaccessible to ordinary minds. With intuition and intelligence, he crafts not only future scholars, but perhaps more importantly, robust individuals. Entering the program, I did not know I would come out a different person. I wish to extend my thanks to Kate Schwennsen, Director of Clemson School of Architecture, a role model and inspiring leader, and to all my colleagues for welcoming me with open hearts. They all make the school an incredible and inspiring place. My gratitude goes to my friends. Dr. Sheila Schwartz, Research and Archives Director at The Saul Steinberg Foundation, is constantly helping me untangle the intricate threads of Steinberg’s life and work. Her discipline and rigor are exemplary, her knowledge, overwhelming, and her warm friendship, exquisite. I thank Berrin for her infectious laugh, and more importantly, for putting up with me during the last months of writing. My dear friends v Cristina and Vijay have stood by me in the thick and the thin. I thank Vijay for bringing spices into my life and for always staying calm in troubled waters. Cristina’s beautiful mind, honesty, and warmth are like no other. I hope she will always know what she means to me and that I am forever grateful for being part of her world. If someone is truly “responsible” for my finishing the work, it is my dear friend Muey, who patiently kept me from drifting away. The immense generosity, with which she fits the entire world in her tiny frame, is humbling. Anca and Virgil Nemoianu have become my family away from home, offering the unconditioned support that one only finds in the closest kin. My warmest and more sincere thoughts go to the Stavropoleos community in Bucharest, for their joy and wit, along with their reassuring presence that make the world a better place. Special thanks to my cousin Camelia, for her sharp humor, intelligence, kindness, and for always showing me the right way to cross the street. Over the years, my family has seen the doings and undoings of my life and work. My parents have watched me come, go, then leave again. Never a reproach, never a question. They are stronger, braver, and more forgiving than anyone I know. Without their love, I would be lost in an abyss. Finally, meeting my husband Luca was the most unexpected gift. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. To him and my parents this work is dedicated. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii General Audience Abstract iii Dedication iv Acknowledgments v List of Figures ix Preface xxiii Chapter 1: Between Boredom and Habitus 1 1.1. Learning from habitus and behaviorism 2 1.2. Boredom in midcentury architectural thought 47 1.3. Less is a bore. 64 Figures 81 First Interlude: Boredom and Dor 92 Chapter 2: Between Boredom and Flatness 133 2.1. Learning from the Quakers 135 2.2. Boredom and midcentury billboards 158 2.3. More is not less. 172 Figures 198 Second Interlude: Boredom and (Day)dreaming 215 vii Chapter 3: Between the Boring and the Interesting 231 3.1. Learning from the interesting 234 3.2. Boredom and midcentury visual arts 263 3.3. Is boring architecture interesting? 274 Figures 311 Postface: “A Quietly Seen Unseen” 318 Figures 323 Bibliography 325 viii LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1 Figure 1.1. Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, “I am a monument,” 1972. Public domain. Figure 1.2. Excerpt from Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1st ed., 1966, p.22-23. Figure 1.3. Excerpt from Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1st ed., 1966, p.30-31. Figure 1.4. Excerpt from Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1st ed., 1966, p.82-83. Figure 1.5. Excerpt from Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1st ed., 1966, p. 28. Figure 1.6. Excerpt from Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1st ed., 1966, p. 37. Figure 1.7. Excerpt from Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1st ed., 1966, p. 40. Figure 1.8. Excerpt from Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1st ed., 1966, p. 41. Figure 1.9. Venturi and Short, Grand’s restaurant, Philadelphia, 1961-62. Venturi and Scott Brown Collection. Courtesy of The Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania by the gift of Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. Figure 1.10. Venturi and Short, Grand’s restaurant, Philadelphia, 1961-62. Venturi and Scott Brown Collection. Courtesy of The Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania by the gift of Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. ix Figure 1.11. Venturi and Short, Grand’s restaurant, Philadelphia, 1961-62. Venturi and Scott Brown Collection. Courtesy of The Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania by the gift of Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. Figure 1.12. Venturi and Short, Grand’s restaurant, Philadelphia, 1961-62. Venturi and Scott Brown Collection. Courtesy of The Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania by the gift of Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. Figure 1.13.